Board’s Actions Questioned

The Orange Unified School District’s board and all of its elementary school teachers, principals and administrators should be very concerned when such a large number of parents are willing to camp out for three days and nights to register their children into the new McPherson Magnet Elementary School, sight unseen, based on high-sounding promises of an enriched educational curriculum.

School district officials should ask themselves: “What are we doing wrong that would cause so many parents to want to withdraw their children from their present neighborhood schools, even if it means camping out for three days and nights in order to make sure that they get registered at this science and technology school?”

I also seriously question the appropriateness of a magnet school on the elementary school level. Shouldn’t an elementary school curriculum expose children to a well-rounded education?

Another issue to consider is the unfairness of the “first come, first serve” registration process for those parents who, through no fault of their own, could not take time off work to camp out, or who, in good faith, followed the rules, showed up at 5 a.m. and as a result did not get to register because they were put in back of the line behind the “campers.” I hope, in hindsight, the school board might see that a lottery system is an inherently much fairer process.

There are also financial considerations. A math, science and technology magnet school will probably be a more expensive school to equip than a standard elementary school. In the seemingly never-ending saga of tight money at the OUSD, where is this money coming from, and is the expense of equipping and staffing McPherson going to shortchange other elementary schools’ financial needs?

MARY M. ADAMS

Orange

* Those who support the decision of the Orange Unified School District Board of Education to end the bilingual program have missed the point. (“Bilingual Class End Applauded,” Letters, May 4.) This action was taken without asking for or accepting community input, which heretofore has not been the norm for a change of this magnitude or, indeed, any change affecting a significant number of children and their families.

I cannot comment upon the merits of the various methods for teaching English as a second language, although it is my understanding that there is disagreement even among the experts. However, I am appalled that this action was taken without any attempt to gain community acceptance or participation in this change. In fact, every effort was made to avoid community involvement in this process, including that of the District Bilingual Committee.

Forget about the bilingual program and look at the process. Is this any way to run a district?

SUSAN GUILFORD

Orange

* The debate over bilingual education continues. Many opponents claim that total English-immersion programs work, yet we need to look more closely at the students for which those programs were intended.

It is true that if a person is already literate in one language--as are many adults taking English as a second language, or adult English speakers taking intensive foreign language classes--the most effective approach is total immersion. But when talking about young children who have not begun to read or write in any language, the research evidence is to the contrary. Children need at least two years of hearing a language before they can be expected to learn the letters, sounds and written words in that language.

I teach bilingual second grade in the Newport-Mesa school district and have not only read the research that supports bilingual education for young children, but I see firsthand that bilingual education works for young limited-English children when it is done properly.

Before any school district makes the decision to eliminate bilingual programs, I hope they look hard at the research and determine the most effective approach for the education of our young limited-English student population.

JANE R. SCHRENZEL

Lake Forest